True, but also false if not for the greater expense of more lives, emergency workers would have to try to save him after he because victim to the heat and smoke FURTHER risking MORE peoples lives who shouldn't have too. Dependent on his size and strength, perhaps tazer is the only thing that could be used with out hurting him or allowing him to hurt others.

I'm not so sure. Literally, I'm not sure about the law here. The firemen have duty and responsibility once they are on the scene. Exactly what that is from a legal standpoint I don't know. There has to be liability. What if it wasn't the stepfather, but a wannabe hero bystander, should they have let him run in as well?

It may look to a layman like there's time to be a hero but we're talking fire, smoke, oxygen (or lack thereof). He wouldn't have gotten far I'm sure. It's just a sad story.

This is a real tough one. I was discussing this with my wife last night because it is such a complex scenario.

I think we both decided it would have to do with how big the fire was, which is a very difficult thing for law enforcement and first responders to assess by themselves.... (however, firefighters are trained to assess the size of a fire).

If the fire was small and the child had even a small chance of being saved by their parent, the officers were in the wrong.

If the fire was large and it was damn near impossible to save the child; the parent would basically throw their lives away: the officers were in the right.

Hypothetically:

My wife and I have a fire in our kitchen, and for some reason the fire is small but we still decide to leave the building. When we are outside we realize the kids are upstairs and have not come out. Simultaneously some cops are passing by (I know..I'm getting ridiculous here), and notice that there is a small amount of fire activity inside. They then prevent us from going back in side and force us to wait for the fire department by whatever means they have at their disposal (force, tazzer, anal probes, whatever). The result of us not being allowed to go back inside means the kids died in the fire.

My wife and I have a fire in our kitchen, and for some reason the fire is small but we still decide to leave the building. When we are outside we realize the kids are upstairs and have not come out. Simultaneously some cops are passing by (I know..I'm getting ridiculous here), and notice that there is a small amount of fire activity inside. They then prevent us from going back in side and force us to wait for the fire department by whatever means they have at their disposal (force, tazzer, anal probes, whatever). The result of us not being allowed to go back inside means the kids died in the fire.

We'd probably try a wrongful death suit against them.

The key point you didn't add to your hypothetical that the main story had was "A firefighter tried unsuccessfully to enter the home and it was deemed too hot for the stepfather to enter." If a fire is that big, that the firefighters can't even get in, the police actually have a job to save more lives keeping normal people out at that point.

Its a heartbreaking story, but the family has no right in this instance to sue the town for doing their jobs of saving lives. They are going to ruin some other people's lives with a needless lawsuit.

What if it wasn't the stepfather, but a wannabe hero bystander, should they have let him run in as well?

Yes. He was self-less, even if not thinking straight. There is a chance that he could have made it in and out, knowing the layout of the home better than the others, etc... you never know, but no matter what 'laws', etc it was his choice to go after the kids.

Heck, the professionals ultimately had no real vested interest in saving the child, this father did what I hope all fathers would do, risk their life for the kids.

True, but also false if not for the greater expense of more lives, emergency workers would have to try to save him after he because victim to the heat and smoke FURTHER risking MORE peoples lives who shouldn't have too. Dependent on his size and strength, perhaps tazer is the only thing that could be used with out hurting him or allowing him to hurt others.

You are assuming that they HAD to go save him in the blaze (hint, they wouldn't as they gave the kid up for dead). Nothing would have been lost save his own life should he have failed the rescue.

Yes. He was self-less, even if not thinking straight. There is a chance that he could have made it in and out, knowing the layout of the home better than the others, etc... you never know, but no matter what 'laws', etc it was his choice to go after the kids.

Heck, the professionals ultimately had no real vested interest in saving the child, this father did what I hope all fathers would do, risk their life for the kids.

And if he only makes it in a few feet, gets 3rd degree burns over his entire body, doesn't save his son and lives a horribly disfigured life (doesn't die a hero, doesn't save the son)? Should anyone be liable? What if he has no health insurance? Who should pay for his care and treatment?

Should the firemen be expected to risk their lives to save "him" at that point?

Just questions to ask. I will also note, most firemen become that for the purpose of saving lives in fires. Their dedication to the task is their vested interest. They're human like everyone else, there are good and bad but in general I believe this to be the case.

The key point you didn't add to your hypothetical that the main story had was "A firefighter tried unsuccessfully to enter the home and it was deemed too hot for the stepfather to enter." If a fire is that big, that the firefighters can't even get in, the police actually have a job to save more lives keeping normal people out at that point.

Its a heartbreaking story, but the family has no right in this instance to sue the town for doing their jobs of saving lives. They are going to ruin some other people's lives with a needless lawsuit.

I trust a firefighter's judgement. They were in the right. Tough life .

And if he only makes it in a few feet, gets 3rd degree burns over his entire body, doesn't save his son and lives a horribly disfigured life (doesn't die a hero, doesn't save the son)? Should anyone be liable? What if he has no health insurance? Who should pay for his care and treatment?

I'm just asking questions, but I prefer, liability and responsibility.

The issue is that you set a precedent, and that will lead to money, which will lead to firefighters being indecisive if not in short supply.

In that hypothetical, who would be responsible for his healthcare and diminished quality of life? And if a fireman died trying to save him? Are more liable? Would the father be liable? Yes, liability is money and more.

Do you not think he would sue the Fire Dept. for letting him go in? You really believe he wouldn't say I was emotional, they should have stopped me. They're the trained professionals, I didn't know I wouldn't be able to breath in about 20 seconds. And now I have to live this miserable life looking like Jabba the Hut and I'm only 30-something.

You have to look at the big picture.

Out of curiosity, if there's a fire, and the firemen are playing poker and don't respond in a reasonable amount of time and a whole family burns to death, is anyone liable?

I'm just asking questions, but I prefer, liability and responsibility.

The issue is that you set a precedent, and that will lead to money, which will lead to firefighters being indecisive if not in short supply.

In that hypothetical, who would be responsible for his healthcare and diminished quality of life? And if a fireman died trying to save him? Are more liable? Would the father be liable? Yes, liability is money and more.

Do you not think he would sue the Fire Dept. for letting him go in? You really believe he wouldn't say I was emotional, they should have stopped me. They're the trained professionals, I didn't know I wouldn't be able to breath in about 20 seconds. And now I have to live this miserable life looking like Jabba the Hut and I'm only 30-something.

You have to look at the big picture.

Out of curiosity, if there's a fire, and the firemen are playing poker and don't respond in a reasonable amount of time and a whole family burns to death, is anyone liable?

In honesty, what you are saying is all based on what ifs and a litigious society covering one's own butt. So what if he was horribly mutilated, he MAY have saved a child/person's life.

Say he was burned and hurt and lived, when what is worth more, a life he saved, or could have saved, or insurance, donations, and the family paying for medical expenses and such? Honestly, ask yourself what life is worth to YOU.

Honestly, it all comes back to money. Sued=money. Health care=money. This is a SICK world that this is even a debate.